Talk:Doctor Who series 2/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one! Full disclosure: I have edited this article thrice (twice to add maintenance templates, once a procedural revert). I have plenty of experience with Doctor Who articles on Wikipedia, so I'm looking forward to reviewing this one. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Following the special, a regular series of thirteen episodes was broadcast, starting with "New Earth" on 15 April 2006. → A regular series of thirteen episodes was broadcast weekly in 2006, starting with "New Earth" on 15 April and concluding with "Doomsday" on 8 July.  Done
  • 13 TARDISODEs → a series of thirteen mini-episodes called Tardisodes or something similar  Done
  • He continues to travel → The Doctor continues to travel  Done
  • Consider rephrasing these two sentences to follow either the character (actor) or actor as character format, as the mention of Coduri as Jackie feels incongruous  Done
  • to see how well the show could do → to determine the show's performance  Done
  • Most of the final two sentences are unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the article  Done
  • The lead requires expansion to summarise the article's content per MOS:LEAD, including the production and reception sections—see season 2 and series 5 for examples  Done

Episodes[edit]

  • newly-regenerated → newly regenerated per MOS:HYPHEN  Done
  • First sentence mentions "Rose" thrice; consider rephrasing  Done
  • lured them here → lured them there  Done
  • teleported on their ship → teleported onto their ship  Done
  • Rose, Mickey, and Jackie drag...—this sentence could be shortened rephrased to avoid repetition, The Sycorax detect the TARDIS and transport it to their ship, with Rose, Mickey, and the Doctor inside.  Done
  • go to New Earth → travel to New Earth  Done
  • Footnote doesn't need a full stop  Done
  • go to Scotland → arrive in Scotland  Done
  • investigative journalist and the Doctor's former companion Sarah Jane Smith → investigative journalist Sarah Jane Smith, the Doctor's former companion,  Done
  • She and her robotic dog...—this sentence is 60 words long and should probably be trimmed  Done
  • the ship; the ship → the ship; it  Done
  • Surely Reinette's death is worth mentioning here, if only briefly?  Done
  • A problem—clarify what the problem is (e.g., A problem with the TARDIS)  Done
  • most of humanity wears EarPods that feed information directly into the wearer's brain and Rose's father Pete is still alive—consider swapping these two points to mention Pete first  Done
  • Unlink Jake Simmonds  Done
  • the parallel universe Jackie's birthday party—this reads a bit awkwardly; consider introducing Jackie earlier instead (perhaps alongside Pete) to avoid confusion
    • Alternatively, since the parallel Jackie is never mentioned again, consider removing her altogether—just mention the birthday party on its own  Done
  • the Doctor, Rose and Pete → the Doctor, Rose, and Pete  Done
  • televisions and hopefully the upcoming coronation → televisions – and intends to use the upcoming coronation –  Done
  • In discovery of this the Doctor → In discovery of this, the Doctor  Done
  • who are there on → who are on  Done
  • Probably not worth introducing Flane since he's never mentioned again  Done
  • The Doctor discovers he has survived the crash → The Doctor survives the crash  Done
  • one of the group's meetings → a meeting  Done
  • return to the meeting room to retrieve Ursula's phone. There Kennedy reveals → return to the meeting room, where Kennedy reveals  Done
  • paving slab—pipe link Pavers (flooring)  Done
  • Unlink Isolus  Done
  • Isolus' pod → Isolus's pod  Done
  • Unlink Cult of Skaro  Done
  • Italicise Doctor Who  Done
  • TARDISODEs → Tardisodes  Done

Casting[edit]

  • This section needs some work. Right now, it's basically a list of guest stars. I'd really like to see some more specific information about the casting.
    • Any more information about David Tennant's auditioning/casting?  Done
    • Anything about Piper, Clarke, and Coduri deciding to return?
    • There's almost certainly information about Sladen's return, and possibly Leeson's  Done
This was done a while ago
    • It's fine to list some guest stars, but with 80% links, that final paragraph is a bit excessive—probably best to stick to the stars who were/are considered notable by reliable secondary sources  Done
Begun trimming section
  • Image caption should be rephrased—why is Piper appearing in series 1 important?  Done
    • It also needs a reference  Done

Production[edit]

Development
  • Recording for the Christmas special...—this information belongs in § Filming  Done
  • Image caption needs a full stop and a reference  Done
Writing
  • The first paragraph is almost completely unsourced, besides the info about Stephen Fry and the Earth setting
  • First sentence is a bit long—I don't think we need the writers' résumé unless they are otherwise relevant to their work on the series  Done
  • Probably a good idea to introduce Davies's role as head writer/executive producer earlier in the paragraph  Done
  • Previous writers → Returning writers  Done
  • Russell T. Davies hired Matthew Graham to write Fear Her. → Davies hired Graham.  Done
  • The sentences about producers and directors don't fit here; this section is about writing  Done
  • Is there any information about the writing of the story arc? Currently the article just recaps its on-screen events without any real world relevance
  • The third paragraph should be trimmed and likely merged with the second—it's basically just expanding on the second paragraph's last sentence  Done
  • Like Casting as aforementioned, this section needs some more information about the writing itself, and insight into the writers' minds. Series 1 and series 5 are great examples of this
Music
  • Wales, and were orchestrated → Wales and orchestrated  Done
  • I would really like to see this section expanded as well, though I understand it's unlikely
    • In that case, it might be worth just merging it with § Development instead
      • Merged with Soundtrack  Done
Filming
  • The reference does not support the table at all—I'm afraid it's completely unsourced  Done
  • The section also needs significant expansion beyond the table: production dates, locations, directors, notable information about the production, etc.  Done

Release[edit]

  • Any information about the series' promotion—trailers, screenings, etc.?
Unfortunatly nothing still live popped up.
This ref has a decent amount per episode (e.g., pp. 20–21 for "The Christmas Invasion", 28–29 for "New Earth", 35 for "Tooth and Claw"). Just be cautious to avoid proseline or excessive detail. ☔
Broadcast
  • Any notable foreign broadcasters to include here, à la series 1 or 5? We don't want to become excessive, but surely there are some worthy of noting  Done
Couldnt find anything not marking not done as mabye something will pop up.
Something popped up
  • TARDISODEs → Tardisodes  Done
Home media
  • A paragraph might be useful here, briefly detailing the home media releases and perhaps some notable special features (dependent on the references)  Done

In print[edit]

  • This should probably be made a subsection of § Release  Done

Reception[edit]

  • Is there a reason this article omits a "Ratings" section?
Lotz is working on a ratings table in a sandbox. I have added a little bit of prose. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • First sentence is unnecessary and unsourced  Done
  • Outlets should be italicised—e.g., Screen Rant, CBR  Done
  • The Video games WikiProject considers Looper unreliable—is there a reason it should be considered differently here?
    • The footnote is also completely unnecessary and adds nothing of substance  Done Removed
  • This has the makings of a good section but it needs some work—what in particular did critics like/dislike about this series and its episodes? Probably the best way to present this information is to group per element of critique: one paragraph for performances, one for writing, one for music, etc.  Done
Awards and nominations
  • The "Nominee(s)" column needs to be sorted per surname—e.g., the first row should read David Tennant... (or use {{sort}} instead)  Done
  • RTS Television Awards → Royal Television Society Programme Awards, and link  Done
  • BAFTA TV Awards → British Academy Television Awards  Done
  • VES Awards → Visual Effects Society Awards  Done
  • Outstanding Performance by an Animated Character in a Live Action Broadcast Program, Commercial, or Music Video—pipe link Visual Effects Society Award for Outstanding Animated Character in an Episode or Real-Time Project  Done

Soundtrack[edit]

  • This should probably be made a subsection of § Release as well  Not done Feel as it holds enough to justify itself .
It's not about "justify[ing] itself" though; it's just about the most appropriate location. MOS:TVPRODUCTION recommends that this section be placed within § Production, so I think there or § Release is the most appropriate. ☔
 Done
  • Infobox should be moved to the top of the section  Done
  • In the infobox, Ben Foster should not be listed as a producer  Done
  • first series, second series and → first series, second series, and  Done
  • The entire second paragraph is unsourced—none of it is mentioned in the refs provided  Done
Replaced first ref second ref is confirmed under "Second & Third Helpings"

References and images[edit]

  • This magazine should come in handy for some additions as mentioned above
  • In addition to below, I've done some spot checking in the relevant sections above
  • From this revision:
    • Ref 1: I wouldn't be opposed to seeing Doctor Who News replaced here—perhaps with the magazine I linked above? (It could be added to a new "Bibliography" section with page numbers referenced using {{sfn}}, like this.)
      • I've finally had a chance to look at the magazine due to network restrictions blocking archive.org. So not all of the viewers seem to be listed, but it is a good source. Hopefully this is the final hurdal holding me back from finishing the review. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 3: I generally prefer linking publishers (in this case, BARB) but it's inconsistent with the rest of the refs here  Done
    • Ref 10, 14, 35, 38, 86, 90: remove Entertainment |  Done
    • Ref 11 and 32: remove Press Office –  Done
    • Ref 18: author is Lewis Knight  Done
    • Ref 39: remove – Doctor Who News – Cult  Done
    • Ref 39: Digital Spy should be in |website= or |work=  Done
    • Ref 39: author is Joanne Oatts  Done
    • Ref 42 and 75: ScreenRant → Screen Rant  Done
    • Ref 53 and 55 are dead and need to be replaced  Done only 55
    • Ref 53, 55, 66: www.ezydvd.com.au → EzyDVD  Done
    • Ref 57, 59, 61: www.fishpond.com.au → Fishpond  Done
    • Ref 65: www.jbhifi.com.au → JB Hi-Fi  Done
    • Ref 73 and 95 are inconsistent with the other Amazon refs  Done
    • Ref 80 and 81: remove UK | Wales |  Done
    • Ref 85 and 93: IMDb is unreliable  Done
      Replaced ref 85 but not 95 as I haven't find a replacement yet. Ref 95 cu
    • Ref 92: replace |author= with |last= and |first=  Done
    • Ref 92: TV Squad should be in |website= or |work=  Done
    • Ref 97 should be formatted properly using {{Cite web}}  Done
    • Ref 98: remove BBC – Doctor Who – News –  Done
  • Consider adding alternative text to all images  Done

Result[edit]

There's a lot to unpack here. I still think there's quite a bit of work to be done before this article qualifies for GA—the § Production and § Reception sections in particular need some significant expansion per WP:GA?#3—but if you're willing to put in considerable work, then I'm willing to see this review through to the end. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant and Lotsw73: Thanks for all of your work on the article so far; it's definitely in better shape than before. There appears to have been a bit of a hiatus—do either of you intend to continue addressing the points above? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm trying to find a replacement for ref 93 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I will continue this review soon, when I have more time. Lotsw73 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it appear that some content can't be sourced are we at the point that we should remove some content. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What content are you having trouble finding sources for? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SFX Awardse . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they can be found in SFX issue 156. That being said, they appear to be reader-voted, so their notability is questionable anyway; I'll leave this to you. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is I cant find a way to access the issue. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the only way is to buy the magazine, unless you're able to get in contact with someone who has a copy and is willing to scan the pages (e.g., a reseller, or someone on social media). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So given the availability of the issue and the possibility of them being crowded sourced should it be removed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The availability itself isn't an issue—offline or costly sources are perfectly appropriate on Wikipedia—but the fact that it's entirely reader-voted (as opposed to a panel/jury of industry professionals) makes me question its importance. The choice is yours. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given I don't know the information about it to properly cite it, I worry of potention copyvio, i'd feel better having it removed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio isn't an issue here at all. We could cite the magazine, but then we're faced with failed verification since none of us have access. I'm fine with its removal. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the soundtrack to the transcluded version, as there's no idea to have hardcopies of identical prose and infoboxes on two articles given that they concern the same topic; however, I've changed the transclusion tags to conform the with point Infobox should be moved to the top of the section. Hope that's good. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that transclusion makes the most sense here. Thanks for addressing the infobox placement! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant and Lotsw73: This review has been open for more than 6 weeks (far longer than the standard 1), and while the article is certainly in better shape than it was, there's still much to be done and not a lot of activity. Unless you can commit to making these changes over the next week or so, I may have to fail the review and ask that you renominate after addressing the article's problems. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I believe I can. I just finished sourcing the table so that's something. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will pitch in when I am available. However, if we can't get the article to good status by next week, and it fails, I will still continue to address the points above, when I am less busy. Lotsw73 (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. I'll have spotty availability over the next ten days or so, so I'm happy to reassess then. I'll still be available for occasional comments, so don't hesitate to ask for anything. I look forward to seeing the rest of your changes. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass[edit]

In light of the improvements made to the article, I'm going to take a second pass and leave all of my remaining comments here. Ref numbers based on this revision.

Casting
  • The first two paragraphs seem short (and related) enough to combine  Done
  • Ref 18 seems completely unnecessary  Done
  • Noel Clarke should likely be moved to "Guest stars"; he wasn't a series lead  Done
  • Is there a source for Coduri's return? I don't have access to refs 21 and 22, but the titles don't suggest she is mentioned there.  Done
  • Refs 27, 35, and 36 don't mention the episode names  Done
  • Clarify that Collins turned down a companion role back in the 60s  Done
    Someone removed it.
Production
  • Refs 47 and 49 don't specify that Harper directed for this series; consider using Pixley 2006, p. 54  Done
    • Maintained the original sources for the classic series detail. Added a pixely ref.
  • Refs 46 and 47 don't specify this series for Lyn and Strong either  Done
  • Episode 11 → the eleventh episode  Done
  • In consequence, Davies hired → Davies consequently hired  Done
  • § Writing could use more expansion per my comment above, though I'm sure this is easier said than done
  • Same with § Filming. Series 5 does this really well, briefly outlining each production block with major dates and locations. We don't want excessive details, but consider some expansion here
Release
  • Per above, a "Promotion" section would be good if possible—nothing too excessive, just some information about major trailers, screenings, etc.
Reception

I'm afraid there's still a bit of work to be done, but if you're willing to work through it, I'm willing to keep this review open longer. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and seeing your work. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotsw73: how soon before you can get the ratings table done? I'll focas on sorting out the references and adding a bit more on filming.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @OlifanofmrTennant: I will try to get it done by next week... I'm afraid I'll have to use Doctor Who News as a major source in the table, just as the Series 5 and Series 6 article do in their ratings tables. Lotsw73 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lotsw73: Thats alright just dont overuse it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doctor_Who_series_2/GA3&oldid=1222051353"